HRH Prince Hussam Bin Saud Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud v Mobile Telecommunications Company KSCP
[2023] EWHC 1144 (Ch)
Mobile Telecommunications Co KSCP v HRH Prince Hussam Bin Saud Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud
31 January 2023
[2023] EWHC 312 (Ch)
High Court
Someone filed for bankruptcy against a prince. The prince said the court couldn't do that. The court decided to hear all arguments together, rejecting requests to throw out evidence and prevent questioning the prince's witnesses ahead of time.
Key Facts
- •Mobile Telecommunications Company KSCP (MTC) filed a bankruptcy petition against HRH Prince Hussam Bin Saud Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud.
- •The debtor challenged the court's jurisdiction.
- •MTC relied on the debtor having a place of residence in England and Wales within the three years preceding the petition.
- •A prior bankruptcy petition had been filed and dismissed.
- •The debtor provided new witness statements contradicting prior statements regarding his residence.
- •MTC sought to exclude the new evidence based on issue estoppel and requested cross-examination of witnesses.
Legal Principles
Jurisdiction in bankruptcy petitions is determined by Section 265 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Insolvency Act 1986, Section 265
Service out of the jurisdiction in bankruptcy petitions is governed by CPR Part 6.
CPR Part 6
The standard of proof for establishing jurisdiction is a 'good arguable case', not the balance of probabilities.
Brownlie v Four Seasons Holding Inc [2017] UKSC 80; Kaefer Aislamientos SA de CV v AMS Drilling Mexico SA de CV [2019] EWCA Civ 10
Issue estoppel requires a final judicial decision on the merits determining a question raised in later litigation.
Spencer Bower and Handley on Res Judicata, 5th edition
Cross-examination at the interlocutory stage is generally not permitted except in exceptional circumstances.
Stokoe Partnership Solicitors v Grayson [2021] EWCA Civ 626; BB & Ors v Al Khayyat [2021] EWHC 1499 (QB)
Outcomes
MTC's application to exclude the new witness statements was denied.
The prior decision was not final, and the questions in the prior and current proceedings were not identical.
MTC's application for cross-examination of witnesses was denied.
Cross-examination at the interlocutory stage on jurisdiction is generally not permitted. The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from this principle.
The Second Set Aside Application and Renewed Service Application will be heard with the Second Petition.
To streamline the proceedings and ensure efficiency.